[pd-discuss] Contact between Wikimedia Foundation and Wellcome Trust regarding image collections?

[Michael S. Hart]

I just think that materials released for "all but commercial
applications" should be included in any public domain online
site. . .with the appropriate identification as such. . . .

No reason to leave them out.

I should add that thousands of Project Gutenberg files would
have to be eliminated under such a policy as I thought was a
suggestion earlier. . .as they are copyrighted.


Please advise,


Michael



On Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Alberto Cerda wrote:

> Michael: Sorry, I didn't get the door metaphor, probably because I am
> not English native speaker.
>
> Bob: Thank. I think you made both point I was trying to raise.
>
> If there is fear about commercial use, public domain cannot avid those
> fears. Personally, I don't think that is the problem. Peopla can made
> money with public domain. Why not? Actually, in some developing
> countries, luckily we have publishers that publish low cost book based
> on public domain. Unfortunately, it does not provide access to more
> updated bibliography.
>
> However, I am afraid about "copyfraud", as Make mentioned that. That is,
> in my understanding, when someone argue exclusive rights on public
> domain works. But here, the problem is not the public domain itself, but
> the precarious protection for public domain content.
>
> Some countries have started to made changes about it, by raising concern
> in international foras and even by adopting domestic law that protect
> public domain, mitigating the risk of copyfraud base on public domain
> explotation. The latter is, for example, the cases of Brazil and Chile,
> that have adopted criinal provisions against who argue exclusive rights
> on public domain contents.
>
> Best,
> A.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Mike Linksvayer
> <ml at creativecommons.org> wrote:
>       On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Michael S. Hart
>       <hart at pglaf.org> wrote:
>             On Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Rob Myers wrote:
>
>             > On 01/13/2011 07:47 PM, Michael S. Hart wrote:
>             > >
>             > > Is there some reason for this that you
>             haven't stated?
>             >
>             > Plagiarism is not a licencing issue, and
>             banning commercial use is
>             > inconsistent with the concepts of the public
>             domain and of free use.
>
>
> I think something was missed here:
>
> The point -I- am arguing with is that they are not
> considering works
> that are given for all but commercial use. . .which is
> pretty much as
> close as you can get to completely public domain without
> letting them
> make money from selling your files.
>
>
> Which isn't all that close.
>  
>       What is the reason for NOT including work that is
>       freely distributable
>       other than for commercial purposes???
>
>
> As Wikimedia was brought up, seehttps://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/Commons:Licensing/J
> ustifications and http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC (their
> licensing policy requires meeting the definition of free culture
> works; link explains why NC only licenses don't).
>
> However, even free licenses are non-exciting for mere
> digitizations of public domain works -- they ought be in the
> public domain! If one can usefully offer under a free license, one
> can also retain all rights. The pejorative term is
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Copyfraud
>
> Holders of public domain works ought instead be clearly stating
> the works are in the public domain. To facilitate this Creative
> Commons recently developed
> http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/ ... however
> experience the last few years has also shown being gentle with
> institutional holders can lead to good results long term ... but
> being gentle may not include featuring "their" works in a "public
> domain review". :-)
>
> Mike
>
> --
> https://creativecommons.net/ml
>
>
>
>